Questions about the rights of prisoners, the Human Rights Act and 'soft touch' justice have been raised again by the cases of Kamel Bourgass and Tanvir Hussain.

They successfully challenged the decision to keep them in segregation for months on end.

Bourgass and Hussain won their appeal to the UK's highest court on a technicality – because the prison official who signed off keeping the dangerous inmates in a cell on their own could not legally act on the justice secretary's behalf.

The Ministry of Justice said the duo will not be eligible for compensation or damages because the judges didn't find their human rights had been breached.

Bourgass, an Algerian, is serving a life sentence for murdering Detective Constable Stephen Oake with a kitchen knife in 2003 during his arrest.

He is serving concurrent 17 years' imprisonment for conspiracy to commit public nuisance by using poisons or explosives in relation to the 2002 Ricin terrorist plot.

Bourgass – who attempted to murder two other police officers during his arrest and wounded a third – was kept in solitary confinement for months at HMP Whitemoor in Cambridgeshire while an investigation was carried out into an attack of another inmate.

PH

MURDERED: Det Con Stephen Oake was killed by Bourgass while trying to arrest him

“”

Hussain was one of three men convicted of a plot to launch suicide attacks on flights from Heathrow to America and Canada using liquid bombs made of hydrogen peroxide hidden in soft drink bottles.

He is serving life with a minimum tariff of 32 years at HMP Frankland in County Durham.

Terrorist conspirator Hussain was segregated while a probe was carried out into the serious injury suffered by another prisoner in an assault.

GETTY

RULING: The UK Supreme Court ruled

The judges said rules of solitary confinement applicable to Bourgass the Hussain only allowed them to be "removed from association" for a maximum of three days.

"It makes sense that the governor should be able to act at his own hand initially since decisions to remove a prisoner from association with other prisoners may need to be taken urgently," they wrote in their judgment published today.

"Rule 45(2) however ensures that segregation does not continue for a prolonged period without the matter being considered not only by the governor but also by officials independent of the management of the prison.

"The decisions to continue the segregation of the two appellants were taken without lawful authority and that their segregation beyond the initial 72 hours was therefore unlawful."

A Prison Service spokesman said: "We are currently considering the Supreme Court judgment but are pleased it found no fault with the majority of the procedures around the segregation of prisoners.

"All prisoners who are segregated are already subject to a careful assessment so their physical and mental wellbeing is safeguarded."

We have asked the prisoners' solicitor and the Prison Officers Association for comment.